What is worth arguing or debating about? What I learned after experiencing Matters several times

I don't know if you have experienced the "controversy" on the Matters station? Every once in a while, there will be all kinds of discussion articles, some of which are more peaceful, some of which are fierce, on Matters or Liker.Social "fire". And I want to share my thoughts today.

Why did you suddenly want to write this article? The reason is that a week ago, because I released " I just opened the furnace, to tell you why "around the furnace" is a failed product! "This article, and many people gave different opinions, of course, there are many different voices, and I also learned a lot after this incident, which made me feel a sense of "evolution". So I decided to write an article to record this event, not only to help me organize my thoughts, think, but also to share it with those in need.

👼 What I learned after experiencing Matters several times

I have read some people's articles stating that Matters often have quarrels and debates, and there was an earlier article that did sort out Matters' debates (connections) from 2020 onwards. If I remember correctly, Matters generates a debate every month and a half on average. Here I have to explain my definition of a debate first: " Mostly, there are plural people in two positions, and the two sides are opposed to each other. Of course, there will be various voices. And each debate has a size level, a small one is just a single one. The discussion of this article, the big one is that everyone posted various articles and discussions, and the station was in an unstable atmosphere for about a week. ”

And I have to be honest, I've been involved in a few debates at Matters, and I'm definitely one of those people who fueled it, and of course I'm not saying it's bad. And according to my definition of a polemic just now, it might be said that I did start a polemic, just a week ago. However, compared to the previous one, it is nothing compared to the previous one (is that how it compares?).

Let me tell you again about my experience with this debate.

Before I came to Matters, I could be regarded as a diving user. I was a person who would look at various forums, but would never leave my thoughts, even if I really wanted to say something. When I came to Matters, I tried to express my thoughts more, participated in several debates, and I did see the power of words, which is often affected. And because of several incidents, I felt that I was in a negative mood for a few days, which made me feel fearful about these things.

But even so, I still posted a few similar articles. After this incident, I managed to let go of this incident. I no longer thought it was a bad thing. Instead, I realized that it could be a good thing and I must pay attention to him. Although this incident did affect my mood, without this incident, I don’t think I would have learned so much. It has been proved that this is definitely not without constructive and worthwhile things. So I will share my experience below.

🙋‍♀️ What kind of communication is constructive, isn’t it okay to quarrel and complain?

Before going into this, I must say that the article I said at the beginning was of a complaining nature, but I apologized after that, and let's move on as to why.

I used to think that quarreling, arguing, and complaining are useless, because the reason for doing so is usually only for oneself, for self-interest to quarrel, often not for the group, but to vent one’s emotions.

But after going through the events of last week, I have a new definition, a new understanding of it. "Complaining is not useless, it is often the key factor that points out the problem." This concept is easy to understand, let's take a look at the following sentence: "The first step to solving a problem is to let the problem surface itself!"

That is to say, we don’t care what the purpose of the complaining person is, whether it is for their own interests, or for the sake of everyone on the platform (I think it is often the former), complaining is a key step in solving the problem, it is to let the problem Getting to the surface is an important first step.

So how can complaining be unconstructive? On the contrary, it should be said that complaining is a constructive thing, and it is often the key factor to point out the problem.

But why is complaining not accepted by most people? The reason is very simple, no one wants to be a trash can or be infected by negative emotions . Even though the above shows that complaining is sometimes the crux of a problem, the first step in change, and can often be constructive, it still doesn’t change the fact that complaining is negative. Therefore, it does not mean that you can't complain, but please do a good job of psychological construction that you will be hated. Because of this, I don't want others to be influenced by me, so I left a message to apologize for the article I mentioned at the beginning of the article.

Fighting and complaining are similar, but not exactly the same. how to say? The purpose of quarreling is often not to reach a conclusion that both parties accept, or a process in which you understand me and I understand you, but is often just to satisfy your own vanity and prove that you are more powerful. Because quarreling cannot find a solution to the problem, it is only for self-interest and does not help the entire communication process, so I think quarrels are not constructive.

Let's start with a small conclusion to this paragraph. In general, I don't think it can be said that "complaining" is unconstructive, and sometimes it is the key step to solve the problem; and "quarrel" is often just to satisfy one's own vanity, and can't make the whole incident There are further developments and therefore not constructive. But anyway, I agree more with the transformation of complaints and quarrels into "pointing out the problem" and "communication".

🤔 If people want to drink water and think of their source, is it wrong to criticize the platform?

Continuing from the previous paragraph, I said that complaining is often the key to spotlighting the problem, the key to bringing it to the surface. But I personally don't really like this approach based on the fact that complaining spreads negativity and so on.

At another level, we have to discuss another question. Is it wrong to complain and criticize the platform? I just repeated the function of complaining just now. I just wanted to explain that in fact, complaints and criticisms are often an opportunity for change . If everyone is reluctant to speak their minds, then the platform will never really change, or even Never realize the problem exists.

So, is this a matter of rationalizing one's own complaints and criticisms? Not really, it's a bit of an oxymoron for me. As far as the level of "speaking" is concerned , I had the opportunity to express my thoughts only with the platform of Matters . Therefore, in any case, all my criticisms and voices are based on the benefits given to me by this platform, and I have not paid anything to the platform, so there is no "customer complaint", so the criticism will be a bit strange. .

Although I have some opinions on some product designs and concepts of the platform, based on the fact that I benefited first, such a contradictory state will indeed arise. It is neither to criticize nor not to criticize.

That was my previous thought, and now I think that there is indeed conflict and contradiction between the two, but as long as we change the way, we can break through such obstacles. As I said in the last paragraph, " I agree more with converting complaints and quarrels into "pointing out the problem" and "communicating" ", as long as these two expressions are converted, this problem will be solved directly .

how to say? If I point out problems and communicate, then I am not criticizing the platform for being bad and how to change it, but simply publishing and sharing my own thoughts (of course, the ultimate goal may also be to hope to change), so there is no Wouldn't it be better if the criticism could still be maintained and the original purpose of change would be maintained without spreading too much negativity?

Therefore, there is nothing wrong with criticizing and complaining, and sometimes the purpose is the same as communicating and pointing out problems. But the former is more annoying than the latter. After all, it will spread negative emotions and make people feel that you are not paying, so why ask for something? And the fact is that if you don't pay at all, just pointing and pointing, who can accept it?

At the end of this paragraph, I must commend those who criticized the platform . Because just thanking, there will never be progress. Those who criticize, complain, and the platform itself are often the ones who promote change. But please note that this still does not mean that you can abuse and verbally attack without restraint. At the same time, I also think that complaints and quarrels should be replaced by pointing out problems and communicating.

❓ Five-point Q&A: Giving popularity, blocking, consensus, and making mistakes

The following are some of the truths I have learned from them, which cannot be divided into one paragraph to explain, so I will share them with you in the form of questions and answers. But first of all, we must first talk about a very important concept, that is, " people change every minute and every second." One second, I may support a certain point of view and think it makes sense, but the next second, I suddenly change my mind and think that point of view is super ridiculous. There are also times when multiple viewpoints are thought to be reasonable, and they often occupy the vast majority of the time.

Therefore, the following views are all my "current" experience and may change at any time. As for the situation of ambivalence when we think that multiple viewpoints are reasonable, we will also explain them one by one in the following. let us start!

• 📌Writing a discussion article is a gift of popularity?

Some people will say that writing this type of article is giving popularity?

To put it simply, "I'm not you, and you're not me," so we can never empathize with other people's feelings, and never fully understand what other people think . The most I can do is to infer the feelings of others based on my own experience and experience, and try to understand them. This is also my definition of "empathy".

Therefore, it is impossible for us to know the purpose of other people writing this type of article. Even if you do not attack anyone out of the mentality of hoping that the problem can be improved, it can also be understood as "giving popularity". A somewhat similar theme, if the situation were reversed, would not have this problem. For example, someone wrote an article thanking Matters, but no one thought it was a gift, right?

After thinking about it for a while, you will find that how to judge whether it is a gift is subjective. If you hate that article, then you are most likely to find some points that can be criticized in this way, and then you say that it is a gift. But if you liked that article, wouldn't it say so? (Except if you are unanimously agreed as a gift of popularity)

And I think if a person writes an article because he wants to give popularity, but he writes a very logical article and points out a lot of key issues, then I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to make some money for him. And as I said at the end of the last paragraph, those who criticize are often the ones who change, so I think it should be taken seriously.

To sum up, what I want to say is that the issue of giving popularity itself is not the point. The question of whether the article itself is reasonable and whether it can find its own value is more important. Because the basis for us to judge whether it is a gift of popularity is often very subjective, and often we come up with a criticism point because we hate someone, so how is it better than the mentality of gifting popularity? (Unanimously agreed as an exception to the popularity) What's more, it is impossible for us to fully understand the thoughts and feelings of others.

• 📌 What should I do if a consensus cannot be reached?

After that kind of polemic and discussion papers are issued, there is often a very heated discussion, but no clear conclusion has been drawn. In such a situation where no consensus can be reached, everyone still only sticks to their own views, and has never given a "consensus" that everyone agrees with. What should we do?

Before discussing this question, we must first re-examine the definition of "consensus", because as long as it is redefined, the answer to the question will naturally emerge. If your definition of consensus is that everyone will come to the same answer, the same conclusion, then I think it is absolutely impossible. If it is something trivial, it is indeed possible to draw group consensus, similar to "universal values".

The fact is that this year is 2022, the times are different, and any binary values should be broken. It is no longer a world of "right and wrong, black and white, right and wrong". If you insist on looking at it with right and wrong, then I believe that you will never come to any answer or conclusion.

Therefore, my definition of consensus is not that everyone has the same consensus, but that everyone can understand and communicate with each other on the same event, and even if they have different ideas, they do not violate each other . If everyone can hold different opinions on the same thing without actually hurting others, it means that those arguments are not simply right or wrong. And in this situation, there is no need for us to forcefully discuss a consensus that everyone agrees with, because that would have no effect at all, and it should be said that it was an "impossible task" from the very beginning.

And don't worry about your own values and concepts being different from others. Of course, you can try to understand and learn from others' concepts, because this is the purpose of communication, debate, and discussion. But you have to have the ability to distinguish what you really need, the perspectives that have "value" for you, and learn to absorb those, that's the most important thing.

• 📌 Blocking comes and blocking, blocking others should be reviewed?

The tool to block has always been around, but I've been terrified of it until now, and I don't know why, maybe it's because of my personality that I shouldn't block people.

But I later realized that "blockade is just a tool", and any labels and emotions are given by humans . The tool is made to be used. If the tool has a negative impact, it will definitely not be a problem with the tool itself, but the user will not use it and cannot control it, that is, it is not suitable.

Therefore, blocking this tool is made to block others. You don't need to care about the reasons behind blocking others. Those are irrelevant. The most important thing is whether you have helped yourself because of this tool. So if you don't like someone then block him. And even if you are blocked, there is nothing to say, even if the other party is the one with the problem (of course, the definition of the problem needs to be discussed), but blocking others is everyone's freedom, he can use it, and you can use it too.

If there is a big problem on the site because of this tool, then the site will not turn a blind eye.

• 📌 How to recover if you make a mistake?

On this issue, because I am an "immature type", I often have a lot of "ignorance", and of course I can't avoid making mistakes. But this truth is actually very simple, if you make a mistake, you will apologize! If the point of view you advocated in the first place, or what you said in the middle of the communication, did have something offensive to the other person, then of course you should apologize.

Of course, it is also difficult to distinguish right from wrong, so when someone thinks your point of view is wrong today, what you should do is to think carefully first, what have you said, is it really inappropriate? If there is, then apologize.

Assuming that it is just a difference of position and the values of the two parties are different, it is obvious that you do not need to apologize, because everyone will have different ideas, and there is no need to belittle yourself because your ideas are different from others. But if it's a situation like the one that really attacked others, then I think you should really apologize.

And everyone's definition of "making mistakes" is different. For example, I think that complaining and spreading negative emotions is not a good thing. This is in conflict with my values. Therefore, I am willing to apologize for this. It should be. But I can still hold the view that "complaining can spread negative emotions, but it is still undeniably one of the elements of solving problems."

• 📌 What should I do if someone is downvoted?

Matters has a downvote feature. And this downvote is anonymous, so everyone can click downvote at will without being seen by others.

Those who only click likes but do not express their thoughts, I can say bluntly, they are a group of cowards who dare not express their thoughts and only dare to hide behind the screen. The reason may be that he is afraid that his argument will not be supported and cannot satisfy his own vanity; or he also knows that there is no actual argument to support his argument, so he has to express his thoughts by downvoting.

Of course, it doesn't mean that you can't downvote. If that person has already attacked others first, it is obviously the person's problem . But in the kind of problem that there is no direct right or wrong, just downvoting and not expressing your own thoughts is undoubtedly just to make others feel bad, because it is impossible to make people understand through logical communication, so it has to be implemented in this way. "Anonymous Attack".

So please don't be influenced by downvotes, thank you.

💡 How to play the value of decentralization? What kind of ecology is suitable for mutual communication?

When you hear the words "decentralization" or "democracy", what do you think of? In the incident last week, someone told me that they did not support my complaints and thought it was not good to spread negative emotions; on the other hand, some people explained that a platform for self-styled public discussion should not criticize complaints like this, because complaints are also very likely to be Identify the key elements of the problem. We have discussed these issues in the first half of the article.

In other words, a furnace owner who has been in business for more than a year shared his own experience, explaining that although Matters' thematic function "Around the Furnace" is still a bit immature, because "freedom has no political or other censorship", "articles can be (relatively) permanently preserved. "For these two reasons, they still chose the perimeter of the Matters platform.

To sum up, I believe that one of the values of decentralization and democracy is the freedom to express speech without being constrained by anyone. This is called "freedom of speech" . But the topic of freedom of speech must have been discussed for a long time. I have also written related articles discussing the definition of freedom of speech. Presumably most people would not support the idea that because of freedom of speech, they can endlessly abuse such words. But the ecology on the Internet is still full of such remarks. Are those people really so hateful and hateful, or will their remarks about themselves hurt people's awareness?

Anyway, most anonymous forums are definitely easier to see such abusive remarks, and it is conceivable that anonymity allows people to hide behind the screen and speak without restraint (or possibly accused). And I think the "semi-anonymous" situation is the most suitable state for discussion, debate, and communication.

how to say? An ecology like Matters will not be completely anonymous, but it does allow people to create a "personality" that is very different from the real people, right? But it can still be like completely anonymous, why is it not like those anonymous platforms, where everyone is madly scolding and scolding? I think this has something to do with status and reputation . If you want to create a good character in a writing platform and society, there is no reason to abuse your reputation wantonly, right?

But on the other hand, if you want to live in a place and a writing platform for a long time, you will definitely hope that the ecology here is beautiful and suitable for you to stay, right? Therefore, people with this kind of awareness will care about and care about the "public affairs" of an ecology, and participate in discussions and communication together. Of course, the purpose is to hope that the whole ecology will become better. Of course, the most real thoughts may also be selfish hopes that they can survive well, but on the premise of not endangering others, why not?

In general, it is definitely not easy to use the "morality" in everyone's heart to restrain behavior, and everyone will make mistakes. Another important thing is that everyone's definition of morality is different, and everyone's values will be different because of their own upbringing environment, so it is impossible for everyone to have the same idea.

Therefore, it may be necessary to use this "invisible mechanism" to constrain everyone's behavior through their own interests. That is to say, through the "invisible constraint" of "semi-anonymity", it is possible to achieve "everyone will not be completely speechless, and they care about public issues and are keen to discuss such things, while maintaining a sense of mutual respect, I won't be in a state of unrestrained ranting". Even if these actions are performed for the sake of their own interests, it can be said to be a state of selfishness, but maybe it is a good thing?

📢 Is discussion valuable? Call for more 'worthy debate'

Coming to the last paragraph of the article, I would like to add two points.

The first thing is, if a friend complains to me about something troublesome in life, it is understandable. After all, it is a state of mutual acquaintance and wants to help each other solve the problem, and of course it is okay to express emotions. But if the other person is complaining about the same thing all day long, then it does make people feel a little upset.

Therefore, what I want to say is that complaining about this incident is aimed at some people who are not acquainted in life. It will only affect people's emotions, and they will not be able to tolerate this incident . And even if you don't express your thoughts in the form of complaining, but you are talking about the same thing all day long, you can't help but wonder, is your purpose really trying to change something through this discussion, or is there another purpose? And it is also worth thinking about, why has the same thing been talked about for so long, but no one has changed it?

The second thing, do all debates and discussions have public value? The answer is no. The public values referred to here are those things that have an impact on the future development of the platform, and obviously many discussions have nothing to do with this. But even so, I can still be inspired by these discussions, so it is still valuable to me.

Therefore, I wrote this article today, discussing various aspects, and I want to say one thing, that is, I will continue to write this type of article and discuss various issues. It's just that I will pay more attention to the type of discussion article, point out the problem in a "relatively objective" way, and then give my own ideas subjectively . Of course, I will spend more time reviewing and thinking about my own arguments, and I will start with a "sharing" perspective, not trying to change anyone.

I don't want to complain either, because I don't want to spread negative emotions that conflict with my values.

Based on all the opinions in this article, I call on everyone to publish more articles to have a "worthy debate" with the many authors of Matters, of course, respect everyone's wishes. In addition, I am also curious about how this article will make me learn, "I am very curious" (this is the stalk of "Bingguo", think of Jingani QAQ)!

🔥 If you like the article, you can help me clap your hands, or join the "Burning Philosophy" topic to burn your life.

📢 I'm still appearing in various places , go find my traces and follow me!

🤑 Paying for the promotion of knowledge is the biggest encouragement, because I love money (laughs).

📝 The elf has collected the articles, the special articles are here , and the waste articles that are usually written easily are here.